This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve
Underwater diving-related articles to a
feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles
The contents of the Jonline page were
merged into
Decompression equipment on 30 July 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline.
No issues noted.
2b.
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Excellent overall, but "part of a saturation system" could be more specific/improved.
7. Overall assessment.
Once again, a good and worthy nomination which has been appropriately and collaboratively tweaked.
First Read Through
"Some equipment is specifically for these functions, both during planning before the dive, and during the dive." I don't like that second comma, and this sentence and the next could probably be tweaked a bit for ease of reading, especially since they're in the lead.
I am not sure about the decision to include tables and algorithms within decompression equipment. Convince me this shouldn't be split off into a separate article?
"The choice of tables for professional diving use is generally made by the organization employing the divers, and for recreational training it is usually prescribed by the certifying agency, but for recreational purposes the diver is generally free to make use of any of the published tables, and for that matter, to modify them to suit himself or herself." That's a one sentence paragraph. I love to write them myself, but it should probably be broken up into separate sentences.
"Bespoke tables or schedules generated by decompression software represent a diver's specific dive plan and breathing gas mixtures. It is usual to generate a schedule for the planned profile and for the most likely contingency profiles." The first sentence could be reworded a bit for more clarity, and the subject of the second one isn't entirely clear. It = bespoke tables? If so, we have a number disparity.
Also in the Decompression software section you have a mix of Wikipedia citations and Harvard style. I'd recommend picking one and sticking with it throughout the article.
I think clarifying between a personal dive computer and a personal decompression computer would help reader understanding. I thought I was reading the same section again at first. :-)
Actually they are usually the same thing. I will rewrite to clarify. Dive computer is probably in more common usage, but both terms are correct, and personal decompression computer is the most descriptive version. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
"As a result, the diver can make a slower ascent than would be called for by a decompression schedule computed by the identical algorithm, as may suit the circumstances, and will be credited for gas elimination during the slower ascent, and penalized if necessary for additional ingassing for those tissues affected." I think the final comma should" go.
"It is largely an empirical procedure, and has a reasonable safety record within the scope of its intended application." That absolutely needs an inline cite.
I managed to borrow Deco for Divers from a friend, and have tried to clarify the section a bit based on this source. There is no reference to the safety record, which I have left out. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
12:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
"It is not clear why this procedure is considered to be an advantage over the use of personal decompression computers which are programmed to allow for a variety of gas mixtures and gas switches during a dive." Sounds like someone else should have put a 'citation needed' tag but added this sentence instead. Regardless, clean up the ratio diving section appropriately.
I will see what I can do. Unfortunately reliable sources on Ratio deco are not common, and tend to be in training manuals not accessible on the internet. This may take a bit longer.• • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
19:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Take a look at what I have done, and let me know if it is acceptable. That said, the original may have been OR, but the source seems to agree to a large extent. Anyway, the new wording is more specific and backed up by published print by an apparently reputable writer. (foreword is by Peter Bennett who is a notable expert in the field of decompression research.)• • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
12:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Can I just say that the series of images for decompression trapezes is wonderfully done? Good stuff.
"This is usually achieved by increasing the partial pressure of oxygen in the breathing gas, as substituting a different inert gas may have counter-diffusion complications due to differing rates of diffusion, which can lead to a net gain in total dissolved gas tension in a tissue." This should probably be 2-3 sentences.
I am having a surprising amount of trouble finding a better way of saying this. All my efforts so far have been longer and less clear. Maybe I need to get some sleep before trying again. Any suggestions would be viewed with interest.• • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
14:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I've changed it to two sentences: This is achieved by increasing the fraction of oxygen in the breathing gas used, whereas substitution of a different inert gas will not produce the desired effect. Any substitution may introduce counter-diffusion complications, owing to differing rates of diffusion of the inert gases, which can lead to a net gain in total dissolved gas tension in a tissue. That's rather less concise, but I think there are several concepts being described in the previous single sentence, so perhaps we need a longer passage to tease them out. I removed "usually" because I don't believe anybody switches inert gases to accelerate deco. There may be an odd esoteric example that I'm unaware of, but I think we can state with some confidence that increasing the oxygen fraction in the mix is how it is done. Increasing the "partial pressure" of oxygen is, IMHO, incorrect as you could simply descend on the same mix to do that, and it would not accelerate decompression! --
RexxS (
talk)
16:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
"Open circuit scuba divers by definition are independent of surface supply, and must take any gas mixture with them that is to be used on a dive." must take with them any gas mixture to be used on the dive, maybe? I hate to be so nitpicky, but I see in your writing all the technically correct but unnecessarily hard to read sentence structures that I've tried hard to train myself out of using.
... and that's probably enough feedback for now. I note that the tables & algorithms portion of the article is a large part of the total article text.
Jclemens (
talk)
20:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment on splitting. The equipment used by divers to calculate and manage their decompression obligations is principally their personal dive computer, or their tables in conjunction with a timer and depth gauge. It would be difficult to talk about the equipment used if the article didn't explore how it is used, so I'd hate to see that lost from this article. While a split of those sections might be theoretically possible, I wouldn't advise it as this article really needs the "meat" of those topics. The sections are already a summary of four articles on algorithms; two articles on tables; and the
personal decompression computer and
ratio decompression article. It's also worth considering that this article was split in March 2016 from
Decompression practice, which in turn was split from
Decompression (diving) in March 2013. Should the size grow unmanageable, we should think more about devolving some of the detail into existing daughter articles, but I don't agree we're there yet. --
RexxS (
talk)
00:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment on referencing. The references may have been my introduction. In most well developed scuba articles, there are a mixture of sources: a few are the same book/manual used many times where it is necessary to give a different page number each time; some are journals or websites each one is a different source. My choice has always been to use shortened footnotes for the books with the page number in the short cite, and CS1-style for the long citations; and then to use the same CS1-style citations for journal, websites, etc. As long as that scheme has been used consistently, I've never come across an objection before, and that includes the Good Articles
Nitrogen narcosis and
Decompression sickness, and the Featured Article
Oxygen toxicity. That's not to say that I don't see your desire to use precisely the same citations for every reference, but I'm not convinced that having to write out for the books the same long CS1 citation many times with just a different page number is actually an improvement. --
RexxS (
talk)
22:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
RexxS, I think the citations referred to are in this paragraph:
V-Planner runs the Variable Permeability Model (VPM; Yount et al., 2000) and allows the choice of VPM-B and VPM-B/E, with six conservatism levels (baseline plus five incrementally more conservative ones). GAP allows the user to choose between a multitude of Bühlmann-based algorithms and the full RGBM (Wienke, 2001) in its five conservatism levels (baseline, two incrementally more liberal and two incrementally more conservative)
On consideration, the statements that the software uses the specified models is supported by the already correctly formatted reference, and the parenthetical comments appear to refer to descriptions of the models, so we might be better served by just Wikilinking to the short articles on those models and leaving out the offending material as redundant. I will do this and see if it is acceptable.• • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
04:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's correct--I was interpreting the parenthetical material as Harvard citations. Is it possible to clarify them such that if they're not, they don't look like they might be? Not a big deal, just a bit visually jarring and appeared inconsistent within the same article.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
For all I know you might be right about the original editor's intentions, but that is not how I saw it. I have removed the parenthetical material and used links from the model names to the Wikipedia articles, leaving less room for confusion. There is another reference already cited for the existence of these algorithms in software packages. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
12:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not concerned with original intentions, so I'd rather see the article reflect best practice (if we can agree on what that is!). I'm no fan of hidden text, so I've tentatively restored the extra bits of information from Peter's edit, because we are usually better to provide a little description, if relevant, than to rely solely on a wiki-link. Our pages are printed out more often than we may think, and wiki-links don't work on paper! Naturally, I won't be offended if you revert me. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk)
13:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Decompression equipment. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I propose that
Jonline be merged into this article with a redirect to the relevant section.
A Jonline is a simple piece of decompression equipment, it is already discussed in this article to the same level as in the primary article, and the primary article remains a short stub with little likelihood of advancing beyond a short stub in the foreseeable future. It may also not comply with general notability requirements.
This article already contains the bulk of the primary article in a section suitable for use as a redirect target. In effect, all that needs to be done is to blank
Jonline, make it a redirect to
Decompression equipment#Jonlines and clean up a few links.